I stopped publishing the comments of the Errormite last week when I realized I was wasting valuable time he could be spending convincing people at Commonweal and Fr. Martin's to join his intelligent hypotheses that Christ and the Apostles repressed the instincts to avoid temptation and reject sin.
This is something the readers here are simply too dim-witted to swallow and there may be people who need his valuable insight to hop from sack to sack all the way to their salvation. Who are we to keep him captivated here?
My return to blogging and my decision to write about the threat to the Church from the theological and political right wing were both occasioned by my growing awareness of the extensive right-wing Catholic blogosphere.What exactly does 'the right wing of the Church" mean?
I understand using the term left wing and right wing when you're talking about political philosophy. The right wing is the conservatives and the left wing are the liberals. Each of these wings begins with the fringe and ideology crosses to meet in the middle. There's really no head of these wings, it's just lateral spectrum of dueling philosophy.
But the Catholic Church is not lateral. It is perpendicular and transcending. There is a Head. God is at the Head and the devil is at the opposite end. Down by the feet, where the snake is swirling around waiting to gobble you up. You have your back to one and your face to the other and you are traveling towards a destination -Heaven/purgatory or hell. All of the people in Christ's Church are supposed to be heading in a unilateral direction - subjecting themselves to the opinion of the Head with the faith of a child. Following the Pope ascending to the top. People with opinions that oppose the head of Christ's Church and his Vicar on Earth are going to hell in a handbasket and they're inviting you to listen to the logic that has them heading that way so you will join them on that journey instead.
Who are the dolts are a matter of opinion that seems simple enough for this simpleton.
Congratulations to Jerry who gets highlighted in Mr Errormite's post.
Mr Errormite goes on to imply that the faithful do not have rights to have a scandalizer of children or the faith removed. His opinion conflicts with Canon Law. It also conflicts with Scripture. Christ did not round up people who were in error and ask them to preach in His Name. He did not subject his followers to Judas. Judas was permitted to be in the crowd but not in a teaching role. Christ in fact did not use the priests and Bishops in the temple because they were leading people astray. Since Canon Law and Scipture at the Head of Christ's Church, I will leave it to your imagination where the substance of old Errormite's opinion is coming from. It's an other old fella. An ancient one.
At the end of the day, people teaching errors to children are going to be grinding and gnashing their teeth about the new breed of Catholics arising from church milquetoast.
Knock yourselves out.
[n.b. - Jerry - do not waste your precious time over there. Mr Errormite, you will not get a podium in my comments section. Stick to the comments section of Commonweal, the National Catholic Reporter and Fr. Martin and the followers of thinkers with their backs turned from the Head of Christ's Church. It would be hypocrisy for me to advocate for the Bishops to stop Saul and Judas from preaching in the Name of Christ and then giving you a platform here. There are plenty of Catholic sites who will host whatever it is your teaching. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and His Church and His Vicar on Earth - You have my prayers.]